Appeal
from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (Frederick
G. Reed, A.J.), entered July 25, 2016. The order granted
defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and denied
plaintiffs' cross motion for a default judgment.

It is
hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously
affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:
Plaintiffs, individual retired employees of defendant, Geneva
City School District, and their retirees association,
commenced this breach of contract/declaratory judgment action
seeking, inter alia, a declaration that they are entitled to
the health insurance benefits provided in the collective
bargaining agreement (CBA) in effect at the time each
individual plaintiff retired. Defendant moved to dismiss the
complaint, contending, inter alia, that plaintiffs had failed
to serve a timely notice of claim as required by Education
Law § 3813 (1) and that the action was barred by the
one-year statute of limitations contained in section 3813
(2-b). Plaintiffs cross-moved for a default judgment,
contending that defendant's motion was untimely or, in
the alternative, for leave to serve a late notice of claim
pursuant to Education Law § 3813 (2-a) and an amended
complaint. We conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its
discretion in granting defendant's motion and denying
plaintiffs' cross motion in its entirety.

Defendant
does not dispute that, due to extensions granted by
plaintiffs' attorney, it had until January 8, 2016 in
which to file an answer or to make a motion to dismiss.
Defendant's attorney attempted to complete the filing
through the e-filing system on that date. Alleging technical
difficulties with the e-filing system, defendant's
attorney, on the next business day, filed and served hard
copies of the documents and thereafter completed the e-filing
within three business days as required by 22 NYCRR 202.5-b
(i). Plaintiffs, in their cross motion, contended that the
motion was untimely and that they were entitled to a default
judgment. Even assuming, arguendo, that the averments of
defendant's attorney are insufficient to establish a
technical difficulty with the e-filing system and thus to
establish that the motion was timely under 22 NYCRR 202.5-b
(i), we nevertheless conclude that the court properly denied
plaintiffs' cross motion for a default judgment.
Plaintiffs do not dispute the court's finding that
defendant had a reasonable excuse for its delay in filing and
serving the motion, but they contend that defendant failed to
establish a meritorious defense to their action. We reject
that contention.

A
defendant opposing an application for a default judgment need
not establish that it will be successful on the merits, but
must establish only that there is "a possible
meritorious defense to the action" (Knupfer v Hertz
Corp., 35 A.D.3d 1237, 1238 [4th Dept 2006]). Here,
defendant had several possible meritorious defenses to the
complaint as a whole or to various claims within the
complaint. For example, plaintiffs had not filed and served a
notice of claim as required by Education Law § 3813 (1)
(see Lopez v City of New York, 179 A.D.2d 388,
388-389 [1st Dept 1992]), and several claims were barred by
the one-year statute of limitations contained in section 3813
(2-b) (see Fapco Landscaping, Inc. v Valhalla Union Free
Sch. Dist., 61 A.D.3d 922, 923 [2d Dept 2009]).
Moreover, with respect to the underlying merits of the
allegations, based on the language in the excerpts of the
CBAs contained in the record on appeal, it appears that
defendant may have had a meritorious defense to all of the
allegations in the complaint (see Non-Instruction
Adm'rs & Supervisors Retirees Assn. v School Dist. of
City of Niagara Falls, 118 A.D.3d 1280, 1282-1283 [4th
Dept 2014]; cf. Kolbe v Tibbetts, 22 N.Y.3d 344,
353-354 [2013]; Guerrucci v School Dist. of City of
Niagara Falls, 126 A.D.3d 1498, 1499 [4th Dept 2015],
lv dismissed25 N.Y.3d 1194');">25 N.Y.3d 1194 [2015]).

Plaintiffs
further contend, in the alternative, that the court should
have permitted them to serve a late notice of claim and an
amended complaint. We reject that contention. "In
determining whether to grant such leave, the court must
consider, inter alia, whether the [plaintiff] has shown a
reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the [school
district] had actual knowledge of the facts surrounding the
claim within 90 days of its accrual, and whether the delay
would cause substantial prejudice to the [school
district]" (Matter of Friend v Town of W.
Seneca, 71 A.D.3d 1406, 1407 [4th Dept 2010]; see
Kennedy v Oswego City Sch. Dist., 148 A.D.3d 1790, 1790
[4th Dept 2017]; see generally Education Law §
3813 [2-a]). "Absent a clear abuse of the court's
broad discretion, the determination of an application for
leave to serve a late notice of claim will not be
disturbed" (Dalton v Akron Cent. Schs., 107
A.D.3d 1517, 1518 [4th Dept 2013], affd 22 N.Y.3d
1000 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see
Kennedy, 148 A.D.3d at 1790). Here, the court determined
that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse
for the delay, and we discern no clear abuse of discretion in
that determination. Moreover, we conclude that plaintiffs
failed to demonstrate that defendant had actual knowledge of
the essential facts underlying the causes of action, i.e.,
actual " [k]nowledge of the injuries or damages claimed
by [the plaintiffs], rather than mere notice of the
underlying occurrence' " (Matter of Candino v
Starpoint Cent. Sch. Dist., 115 A.D.3d 1170, 1171 [4th
Dept 2014], affd24 N.Y.3d 925');">24 N.Y.3d 925 [2014]).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Finally,
plaintiffs contend that they are not time-barred from
receiving the health care coverage that was in effect at the
time they retired, based on the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing as well as the continuing wrong
doctrine. Those contentions are improperly raised for the
first time on appeal, and we therefore do not address them
(see Associated Textile Rental Servs. v Xerox Corp.,
2 A.D.3d 1301, 1301 [4th Dept 2003]; Merchants Bank of
N.Y. v Stahl, 269 A.D.2d 236, 236 [1st Dept 2000];
Velaire v City of Schenectady, ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.